If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Libs will do anything and everything they can to ensure the elections are rigged in their favor.

The Electoral College is broken. Congress broke it when it fixed the size of the House in 1910 (or thereabouts) .

Now, theoretically, Montana's population could dwindle to a thousand people and it would still have three electoral votes, while Florida's population could swell to 30 million and only have an apportioned share of the House seats once the low population states are given their guarantee.

But it's already creating a situation the Electoral College was NEVER intended to create. It is nothing but a lie that the Electoral College was supposed to protect smaller states. The Founding Fathers do not appear to have imagined a House of fixed size or the inequity that would generate.

I'm not going to do the math again, because I'm tired of going through this. But the last time I recall doing this, each Electoral Vote in Wyoming represented about 200,000 people, while each EC vote in Florida represented about 775,000 people. That's not right, nor is it as the constitution intended. The constitution intended for Wyoming to have a minimum of one house seat but one for each of about 30,000 people, and for Florida (I am aware that neither of these states was a state during the work of the Founding Fathers) was supposed to have one House seat for every 30,000 people. The only edge for the smaller state was that it would have two Senators regardless of population, and thus three EC votes at a minimum.

Of course we can't have a House with 10,000 seats, it's too big. But we can use the average of the three smallest states as a baseline, and them allocate seats proportionally to the other states using that baseline. For example, if the average population of the three smallest states is 598,000. So using that as a baseline, Florida would have 33 electors rather than the current 27 and California would have 65 electors rather than the current 55.

Of course, the most precise way, and the fairest to all states, as well as most cost effective way to apportion the House would be to weight the seats. So if Wyoming has 400,000 people, then their House seat would have a value of "1". If Montana has 600,000 people then its House seat would have a value of "1.5". A state with 800,000 people would get two seats. And so on...

Indeed. I am sure you are right. The libs view this move as a move in their direction.

But wait. Clinton served two terms and never got 50% of the popular vote. He did get the most votes, just not 50%.

This move may go against liberals.

And we ain't heard howling if that happens.:)

A majority is not necessarily "greater than 50%". If A , B, and C are running for office and A and B each get 30% of the vote, C wins with a majority of 40%.

Majority simply means the largest group. That's why these people running around saying "White will be the minority in 2050" are so lame. Whites will still be the majority, even if we're only 49% of the population unless the other 51% is one single other group.

Majority simply means the largest group. That's why these people running around saying "White will be the minority in 2050" are so lame. Whites will still be the majority, even if we're only 49% of the population unless the other 51% is one single other group.

The people who say that have a very strict definition of "white", and a vested interest in anti-american ideas such as "racial purity". There are so many americans of mixed heritage, and that number grows with each generation, that the concept of race will eventually disappear in this country.

hope no one ever seriously considers doing away with the EC. It's what seperates us from a Democratic tyranny and what we have left of a Republic.

Could you imagine having our POTUS chosen by the popular count of votes from the North Eastern US and California? :eek:

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

The Electoral College is broken. Congress broke it when it fixed the size of the House in 1910 (or thereabouts) .

Now, theoretically, Montana's population could dwindle to a thousand people and it would still have three electoral votes, while Florida's population could swell to 30 million and only have an apportioned share of the House seats once the low population states are given their guarantee.

But it's already creating a situation the Electoral College was NEVER intended to create. It is nothing but a lie that the Electoral College was supposed to protect smaller states. The Founding Fathers do not appear to have imagined a House of fixed size or the inequity that would generate.

I'm not going to do the math again, because I'm tired of going through this. But the last time I recall doing this, each Electoral Vote in Wyoming represented about 200,000 people, while each EC vote in Florida represented about 775,000 people. That's not right, nor is it as the constitution intended. The constitution intended for Wyoming to have a minimum of one house seat but one for each of about 30,000 people, and for Florida (I am aware that neither of these states was a state during the work of the Founding Fathers) was supposed to have one House seat for every 30,000 people. The only edge for the smaller state was that it would have two Senators regardless of population, and thus three EC votes at a minimum.

Of course we can't have a House with 10,000 seats, it's too big. But we can use the average of the three smallest states as a baseline, and them allocate seats proportionally to the other states using that baseline. For example, if the average population of the three smallest states is 598,000. So using that as a baseline, Florida would have 33 electors rather than the current 27 and California would have 65 electors rather than the current 55.

Of course, the most precise way, and the fairest to all states, as well as most cost effective way to apportion the House would be to weight the seats. So if Wyoming has 400,000 people, then their House seat would have a value of "1". If Montana has 600,000 people then its House seat would have a value of "1.5". A state with 800,000 people would get two seats. And so on...

um....what? the EC is and always been based on the number of Representatives and Senators, each states has at lest one Rep and 2 Senators. I do agree that fixing the size of the House causes a lot some issues, but not to the extend that you seem to think it does.

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry

The people who say that have a very strict definition of "white", and a vested interest in anti-american ideas such as "racial purity". There are so many americans of mixed heritage, and that number grows with each generation, that the concept of race will eventually disappear in this country.

Very true. Basically to arrive at the 49% figure you have to count every Hispanic, Latino, and Spanish Surnamed American as "nonwhite". And yet, while these people salivate at this idea, we have biracial people asserting their right to identify as either racial component of their heritage, rather than to accept the obvious assignment given them by any given passerby. My dear friend, BTW, is half Filipino and identifies as Caucasian. Yet we have people who consider Mel Martinez and George Prescott Bush "non-white".

um....what? the EC is and always been based on the number of Representatives and Senators, each states has at lest one Rep and 2 Senators. I do agree that fixing the size of the House causes a lot some issues, but not to the extend that you seem to think it does.

When the Electoral College was designed, the size of the House grew every ten years with the new national census. Fixing the size of the House very much affected the function of the Electoral College.

When the Electoral College was designed, the size of the House grew every ten years with the new national census. Fixing the size of the House very much affected the function of the Electoral College.

I don't disagree, but it's the extent that I disagree with. You made it sound as if the small states like WY and AK would have fewer than 3, which they can't period, would they have more? possibly, but don't see how it would matter that much over all, there would still have to be 50%+1 EC votes for there to be a winning President.

"Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry